THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 183352. August 9, 2010.]

HEIRS OF JOSE M. CERVANTES, namely ROSALINA S. CERVANTES,

TEODORO S. CERVANTES, LUISITO S. CERVANTES and JOSELITO S.
CERVANTES , petitioners, vs . JESUS G. MIRANDA , respondent.

DECISION

CARPIO MORALES , J : p

Arturo Miranda (Arturo) was a holder of Certi cate of Land Transfer (CLT) No.
160774 covering a parcel of land denominated as Lot No. 1532 in the name of Jesus
Panlilio, located in Cabalantian, Bacolor, Pampanga measuring about 2.8070 hectares
(the land). HaTDAE

On August 10, 1981, Arturo executed a waiver 1 surrendering his CLT in favor of
his cousin Jose M. Cervantes (Jose), predecessor-in-interest of herein petitioners. The
waiver reads:
I, ARTURO O. MIRANDA, of legal age, married, Filipino, with residence and postal
address at Cabalantian, Bacolor, Pampanga, that I am a tenant-farmer of a
parcel of land devoted to the production of rice located at Cabalantian,
Bacolor, Pampanga at the estate of Jesus Panlilio containing an area
of 2.8070 has., more or less ;
That I have abandone [ sic ] and surrender [ sic ] my farmholding because
I landed a job in Saudi Arabia and cannot work on the farm as well as I
cannot cope with the payment of said landholdings;

That my wife and children are not interested to cultivate said land due to the fact
that they are engaged in other forms of business;

That due to the aforementioned circumstances, I have waive [ sic ] all my

rights and interest over the said landholding in favor of JOSE M.
CERVANTES , likewise of legal age, married, Filipino, with residence and postal
address at Cabalantian, Bacolor, Pampanga, who is my cousin and the actual
tiller and the most qualified to till the land; (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

xxx xxx xxx

By virtue of the above document, the Samahang Nayon of Cabalantian, through a

Resolution 2 approved on September 11, 1981 Arturo's surrender of the CLT, and
awarded the land to Jose.
On May 10, 2002, Jesus G. Miranda (respondent) plowed through the land by
force and stealth. As mediation 3 between Jose and respondent failed to settle the
matter, Jose led a complaint at the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(PARAB) before which he submitted documentary evidence including Arturo's waiver
and the Samahang Nayon Resolution approval of the surrender of the CLT to him; tax
declarations 4 of the subject land in Arturo's name, and af davits 5 from various
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 individuals stating that he (Jose) is a tenant of the land whereas respondent was not,
the latter being a bus driver and, therefore, could not have cultivated it. He likewise
submitted various previous certifications 6 from government agencies/of ces as to his
being the tiller/tenant of the land, and a certi cation 7 from the Bureau of Immigration
that respondent is an American citizen and had just arrived from the United States on
March 29, 2002.
For his part, respondent claimed that his father Anselmo Miranda was the
original tenant of the land and that he and his brothers had been in its possession since
the 1940s; in the 1950s, he alone paid rentals to the owner of the land, Luz Vda. de
Panlilio; in the 1960s, the land was submerged in water, and in the 1990s, it was
affected by the lahar from Mt. Pinatubo, rendering the land un t for cultivation for a
number of years; that he was petitioned by his children living in the United States in the
late 1960s and he eventually became an American citizen, and on his return from the
United States in 2002, learning that the land may now be tilled, he proceeded to have it
cleared. DaHISE

Respondent submitted a July 10, 2002 letter 8 of Lourdes Panlilio, an alleged heir
of the original owner of the land, addressed to the Municipal Agrarian Reform Of ce (1)
discrediting the Samahang Nayon Resolution which appeared not to bear the signature
of the barangay captain; (2) stating that respondent was "indorsed" to them by
respondent's father Anselmo, and that respondent did not pay rentals; (3) stating that
she doesn't know Jose, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners; and (4) opining that
respondent should be preferred over Jose. He likewise submitted several af davits 9
executed by alleged neighbors stating that it was he who actually tilled the land before
it was submerged in water, and an Af davit 1 0 of Retraction from Arturo Miranda where
the latter stated that he did not voluntarily waive his rights to the land in favor of Jose
and that he (Arturo) did not himself have rights to it in the first place.
By Decision 1 1 of August 23, 2004, PARAB Adjudicator Erasmo SP. Cruz, ruling in
favor of Jose, held that the land is covered by the operation land transfer scheme of the
government and as between the two parties, Jose had shown through documentary
evidence that he had a better right as tenant; and that assuming arguendo that
respondent indeed cultivated the land prior to its being submerged in water in the
1960s, his non-payment of rentals and he having returned to the country only in 2002
amounted to abandonment.
The Adjudicator went on to hold that as between an American citizen
(respondent) and a former Assemblyman of the Interim Batasang Pambansa for the
agricultural sector (Jose), the latter should be preferred as the quali ed farmer-
beneficiary.
Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied by Order 1 2 of January 4,
2005, hence, he appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) which, by Decision 1 3 of October 3, 2005, af rmed the ruling of the Provincial
Adjudicator, and denied respondent's motion for reconsideration by Resolution 1 4 of
October 10, 2006.
Before the Court of Appeals, respondent challenged the DARAB Decision raising,
among other issues, the DARAB's lack of jurisdiction over the case.
The Court of Appeals, by Decision 1 5 of October 31, 2007, set aside the Decision
of the DARAB saying it lacked jurisdiction over the case as it was essentially one for
forcible entry and unlawful detainer that should have been lodged in the Municipal Trial
Court. For the DARAB to acquire jurisdiction over a similar dispute, the appellate court
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 held, "there must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties" which is lacking in
the present case.
Further, the appellate court held that even if the therein petitioner-herein
respondent only raised the question of jurisdiction on appeal, he is not in estoppel as
jurisdiction over a case is determined by law and not by the consent or waiver of the
parties. HAEDCT

On the merits, the appellate court held that the ndings of the DARAB was not
supported by evidence since the documents submitted by Jose, particularly on the
identity of the lot, had discrepancies or were inconsistent. Hence, the present petition.
The Court finds for petitioner.
The DARAB has jurisdiction over agrarian disputes. An agrarian dispute refers to
any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy,
stewardship, or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes
concerning farmworkers' associations or representation of persons in negotiating,
xing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial
arrangements. It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired
and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowner to
farmworkers, tenants, and other agrarian reform bene ciaries, whether the
disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and bene ciary,
landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee . It relates to any controversy relating
to, among others, tenancy over lands devoted to agriculture. 1 6
In the present case, although there is admittedly no tenancy relationship between
Jose and respondent and the complaint led before the DARAB was denominated as
one for forcible entry, it is the DARAB and not the regular courts which has jurisdiction
of the case. As Spouses Carpio v. Sebastian 1 7 teaches:
Although the opposing parties in this case are not the landlord against
his tenants , or vice-versa , the case still falls within the jurisdiction of
the DARAB pursuant to this Court's ruling in Department of Agrarian Reform v.
Abdulwahid where the Court pronounced, thus:
The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) is vested
with primary and exclusive jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate
agrarian reform matters, including all matters involving the implementation
of the agrarian reform program. Thus, when a case is merely an
incident involving the implementation of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), then jurisdiction remains with
the DARAB, and not with the regular courts .
xxx xxx xxx

. . . [J]urisdiction should be determined by considering not only

the status or relationship of the parties but also the nature of the
issues or questions that is the subject of the controversy. Thus, if
the issues between the parties are intertwined with the resolution
of an issue within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB, such
dispute must be addressed and resolved by the DARAB . (emphasis
in the original; underscoring supplied)
aEcTDI

Furthermore, under Rule II (Jurisdiction of the Board and Adjudicators) of the

2009 DARAB's Rules of Procedure, viz.:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 SECTION 1. Primary and Exclusive Original and Appellate Jurisdiction . —
The Board shall have primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and
appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under
R.A. No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No. 9700, E.O. Nos. 228, 229, and 129-A, R.A.
No. 3844 as amended by R.A. No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other
agrarian laws and their Implementing Rules and Regulations. Speci cally, such
jurisdiction shall include but not be limited to cases involving the following:
xxx xxx xxx

d. Those cases involving the ejectment and dispossession of

tenants and/or leaseholders;

xxx xxx xxx (emphasis supplied)

From a perusal of the submissions of the parties and their respective allegations
during the hearings before the DARAB, the following undisputed facts emerge: Jose
was physically dispossessed of the land of which he claims to be a tenant; and
respondent himself claims to be a tenant. The resolution of the case then hinges
on a determination of who between Jose's successors-in-interest and
respondent is the true farmer-bene ciary of the leasehold in question, a
matter which is best resolved by the DARAB and not by the regular courts .
Even if no landowner-tenant vinculum juris was alleged between Jose and
respondent then, the present controversy can be characterized as an agrarian dispute
over which the DARAB can assume jurisdiction.
As to the DARAB's disquisition of the case on the merits, the Court has
consistently held that the ndings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial
bodies, like the DARAB, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is
con ned to speci c matters, are generally accorded respect. In the present case, there
is no ground to disturb the DARAB's ndings, which af rmed those of the PARAB after
due hearing and appreciation of the evidence submitted by both parties.
WHEREFORE , the petition is GRANTED . The Decision dated October 31, 2007
and the Resolution dated May 13, 2008 of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE . The Decision and Order dated October 3, 2005 and October 10, 2006
respectively of the DARAB af rming the Decision of the Provincial Adjudicator in Case
No. 5912 P 2002 are REINSTATED . TEDaAc

SO ORDERED .
Brion, Bersamin, Abad * and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes

*Additional member per Special Order No. 838 dated May 17, 2010.

1.CA rollo, pp. 78-77.

2.CA rollo, p. 76.
3.Vide Certification from the Bacolor Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer dated June 17, 2002;
records, p. 66.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 4.Id. at 64-63.
5.Id. at 61-58.
6.Vide Certification from the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office dated April 24, 1984 signed by
Team leader Gregorio A. Nunag; Certification dated February 8, 1993 by Brgy. Captain
Conrado O. Pangilinan, Jr.; Certification dated August 13, 1991 of Samahang Nayon
President Cayetano O. Bengco; records, pp. 71-69.
7.Vide Certification dated June 25, 2002 issued by Renato O. Santiago.

8.Records, pp. 27-26.

9.Id. at 214-211.
10.Id. at 192.

11.Id. at 310-306.
12.Id. at 479.

13.Id. at 572-568. Penned by Asst. Sec. Lorenzo R. Reyes and concurred in by Usec Severino T.
Madronio, Asst. Sec. Augusto P. Quijano, Asst. Sec. Edgar A. Igano and Asst. Sec. Delfin
B. Samson.
14.Id. at 627-626. Penned by Ma. Patricia Rualo-Bello and concurred in by Augusto P. Quijano
and Edgar A. Igano.

15.CA rollo, pp. 357-366. Penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and concurred in by
Associate Justices Lucenito N. Tagle and Agustin S. Dizon.

16.Vide Amurao v.Villalobos, G.R. No. 157491, June 20, 2006, 491 SCRA 464.
17.G.R. No. 166108, June 16, 2010 citing Department of Agrarian Reform v. Abdulwahid,
G.R. No. 163285, February 27, 2008, 547 SCRA 30.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com